Timeline for Proposed new language for FAQ
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2013 at 15:53 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @HopelessN00b I agree in the same sense that I defended cpanel questions. I'm quite certain that the majority of questions about prepackaged xAMP stacks will be a similar festering pile of excrement, but I don't think we can just banish them. | |
| Jan 2, 2013 at 7:41 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @voretaq7 *AMP stacks do also/can also have their place in production (I've used them as part of imaging suites, like F.O.G. and Clonezilla), so I feel it's a bad idea to specifically call out AMP stacks as off-topic development tools when it's the usage that's causing the problem rather than the AMP stack itself. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 18:59 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | I do not agree with the proposed FAQ changes (if for no other reason than people may, against all best practices, deploy xAMP in "production"). If you have an issue with being told that inappropriately migrated questions are inappropriate then respectfully please consider yourself part of the reason we no longer accept ANY user migrations from SO. If you think there is a "bullying" problem please open a separate discussion (preferably with more than singleton examples) so we can discuss it without FAQ-Change baggage. Thanks! | |
| S Jan 1, 2013 at 18:12 | history | notice removed | user9517Mod | ||
| S Jan 1, 2013 at 18:12 | history | unlocked | user9517Mod | ||
| S Jan 1, 2013 at 17:37 | history | notice added | user9517Mod | Comments only | |
| S Jan 1, 2013 at 17:37 | history | locked | user9517Mod | ||
| Jan 1, 2013 at 17:30 | comment | added | Rob Moir | @martin's you can review a question or answer's edit history, and roll it back if you have enough privs or you 'own' it by clicking on the link for 'edited <x hours ago>' at the bottom of the question. This will give you a list of the edits made and under earlier ones there should be an option to roll back the post. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 17:27 | comment | added | Dan | @martin's Excellent news. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 17:26 | comment | added | martin's | @RobM With regards to rolling back your edits, I am not sure I can do that. I don't see a button that allows me to do so. Even then, I would want to be sensitive and at least consider your suggestion to re-read and edit. I am not an ass. That said, I have spent way too much time on this subject and really need to get back to work. SF isn't so important to me that I need to win this battle. I responded to bullying by raising the point and suggesting that the FAQ, the operating rules at SF and the behavior of some of it's members needs to be looked at. I can move on now. The rest is up to you. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 17:22 | comment | added | Dan | @martin's I have a question for you: Why do you care so much about a community that quite clearly isn't aligned to what you want? There's nothing wrong with not liking somewhere, but I find it very peculiar how you're so desperate to go up against those who do find it a good fit for them. If you were to enter a bar that you felt unwelcoming, would you begin a campaign to change it or would you simply move on to somewhere more fitting. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 17:20 | comment | added | martin's | @RobM Just like USENET newsgroups --yes-- where regulars would gang-up on newcomers and beat them until they either fell in line or left. No different here. And it will lead to the same final outcome: the site will become a place for a "clan" to exists at the expense of others interested in participating and contributing. Most people aren't like me, it take a lot to intimidate me into shutting up, as these and other posts indicate. When I know I am right I can't be bullied into choosing looking at the wall: youtube.com/watch?v=4KnaU65nLr8 | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 17:16 | comment | added | martin's | @RobM "I wasn't adding to the 'ganging-up'". Well, you did, unintentionally so, but you did. While I understand that what I said might tweak some the wrong way it needs to be addressed because I feel that it is affecting the feel and personality of SF to newcomers. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:54 | comment | added | Rob Moir | Martins - you can roll my edit back if you disagree with it, but I'd suggest you'd need to apply your own edits to the original post if you want it to be constructive. As for where I was, I wasn't adding to the 'ganging-up'... | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:37 | comment | added | EEAA | @martin's - you were not called a troll for challenging SF. You were called a troll for 1) your tone (accusatory, condescending, non-constructive) and 2) the fact that (after many people tried to communicate this to you) you would not acknowledge the fact that XAMPP was a dev tool. Look at this from an objective perspective: a brand new user shows up, asks an off-topic question, takes offense, and proceeds to start making demands of the community without truly taking time to understand the community first, all the while, ignoring and insulting those who were trying to clarify things for you. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:31 | comment | added | EEAA | @martin's - Well as stated before, the SO->SF migration path is no more, so that shouldn't be an issue. If XAMPP questions are being closed on SO, then you need to raise that over on mSO. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:27 | comment | added | martin's | @RobM "where can this question get the best answers". That's exactly part of the problem. Some questions (XAMPP is what I experienced) don't seem to have an accepted home anywhere. They were getting moved from SO to SF and then sometimes closed in SF. The message is very confusing. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:22 | comment | added | martin's | @RobM Of course it is clearly slanted to address the issues I have seen, because that's all I know. How could I possibly slant it to address issues others have had that I know absolutely nothing about? | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:21 | comment | added | martin's | @RobM Where were you and your editing magic when high-rep users called me a troll for daring to challenge them? I think it is wrong that you edited my post. What I said may have been offensive to you but it is the truth and it needs to be discussed and addressed. In many ways you are adding yourself to the problem by attempting to suppress the message --in meta, of all places. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 15:59 | comment | added | Rob Moir | A better way to consider categories like development environments, rather than 'is this question allowed' might be 'where can this question get the best answers'. Aside from anything else, it's getting away from what not to do and telling people how to get better answers to their questions. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 14:40 | answer | added | sysadmin1138Mod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 13:14 | answer | added | user9517Mod | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 11:31 | comment | added | Rob Moir | I've edited the post to remove some of the commentary. Whatever you think of the high-rep users here, calling out people as bullies is a personal attack and it is just going to make any reasonable debate of the points you raise impossible. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 11:29 | history | edited | Rob Moir | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Edited personal commentary to try and make the question less controversial and more of an open discussion point.
|
| Jan 1, 2013 at 11:19 | comment | added | Rob Moir | I find it easy to believe that any SE staff would encourage you to post on SF's meta about problems with our FAQ. I find it a little more difficult to believe they'd specifically encourage a FAQ that is clearly slanted towards addressing your personal issues over one question, especially when they have already turned down our suggestions for a FAQ that more closely defined what questions were and were not on topic. With all due respect to yourself and to @shog9 I'm going to have to say citation needed on that one. I think your post would be more useful without the commentary. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:46 | history | edited | martin's | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed "and the dedicated" to "for the dedicated"
|
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:37 | history | edited | martin's | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 241 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:14 | answer | added | Ward - Trying CodidactMod | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 9:29 | history | asked | martin's | CC BY-SA 3.0 |